Log in

Geology

Fuck this

OK. You know these Neocons and Fundy fucksticks have got organised when every single time you search for something, you get intelligent design. This can only come about on google because heaps and heaps of like-minded fucklickers have linked to these articles on I.D. and Creation "Science".

So. I propose Project Linksalot.

Project Linksalot is all aboout providing a foil to the Fundy Neocon intelligent designer supporters. What we do, right, is find a reasonable set of websites which defend the right-minded scientific viewpoints and we spread them onto every single LJ, forum and blog we can, to boost the linkage rate to these sites, and hopefully shunt them up the google pecking order so they can compete rightfully alongside the ridiculous fantasy sites on there already.

Seriously, this is utter B.S., and as a bunch of geologists, we have a responsibility to Science (as an institution) to combat ridiculous shit.

And this is also applicable to Wikipedia, where I'm trying my best. For instance;Coal is magmatic according to some. Back me up, geo posse!And this and its related talk page.

I do warn you, its a very intestinal, anal argument going on there. But, try your best. The arguments are pretty fucking simple. And they go to the core of geology; is it a science with observable facts and relationships and measurable criteria, or can you study astrophysics and claim all sorts of wild bullshit (which is fine) but then back it up with pages written by LaRouche et al?

The main problem I have with the whole argument is that he evidence is all secondary or tertiary surces. Part of this is the Russian papers are hidden, either because of lack of translation, or lack of dissemination. But even so...surely if they are peer reviewed and this contentious, there ought to be something?

Fair enough, soldier. The thing about googlebombing is that google is a flawed search engine. It is, in fact, self-referential. The top pages of google are, without much exception, the ones most cited. This in turn reinforces their "relevance" on Google, which causes tem to be cited more. You can see where this is going.

So what's wrong with push the scientific viewpoint? True scientists, which I am not because I am paid for profiteering on rocks and do no real research (and unless you do, you're fooling youself), woulddn't googlebomb. Which is the whole reason more impressionable students and young'uns are seeing more intelligent design and creation science articles than actual, real,scientific evidence, thanks Google.

I don't particularly see any problem with this from an ethical viewpoint. Just to clarify; yes, this will be a political act. If you are apolitical, fine. But if you are political, let your vote (and bogusgooglebombed links) count.

You also seem to think it has to be spam. Does not; you can put a link in a parentheses, and no one will notice.

While I agree that there is no room for ID or creation science in geology, your arguments are going to get you farther when you are less incindiary. I can accept your outrage, but swearing and name calling doesn't help your case and makes your argument seem less intelligent. This is a shame because the point you make is excellent, should one be willing to look past the unnecessary remarks.

In the same class (historical geology) that taught us to remove ID and Creation Science from our mindsets we were taught how to argue properly, based on facts, measure and reason.

psI am amused that in one place you shorthanded "B.S." yet didn't in another location, while further utilizing various forms of "fuck".

While the point you make is valid, as a researching scientist you should be aware that ANY website giving information on the internet is unlikely to have been approved of by peers of the subject matter and is therefore not a reliable resource in any case. I suggest sticking to published research papers and books, handily found at your local library.

As long as life on earth through extra terrestial doings is fairly represented. I mean, scientists are all about giving every possibility fair research and thought, right? Then why is this possibility being shafted?

This whole thing is goofy. It's like scientists are so against the intelligent design initiative but then they forget that others do have the -right- to believe what they believe and think what they think. What i believe, that intelligent design and whatever natural processes there are are one in the same, will never be mainstream and I am okay with that.

Personally, I feel doing something about what is taught in public schools needs to be priority.

Because as Behe said it's all about the mechanisms (i.e. criticizing evolutionary mechanisms), yet he and other ID researchers say you can't study the mechanism by which Jesus the intelligent designer imparts design.

First of all, science is not a belief. And although people have the right to "believe" what they want, the theories and hyotheses that come from the evolution standing in the scientific argument are not just some whim, but the best explanation given that evidence. Everything that I have heard from the creationist argument is grossly the opposite to the point where it denotes anything that argues against their perspective as flawed. It's a post-hawk argument to begin with, which in and of itself does not cohere to the applications of scientific thought.

The scientific reasoning behind evolution is a deduction based on observation, as isolating as it may seem; not a fluffy reassuring signal that we are all ok and part of "something" else as the creation or ID conclusion would like us to think - still lacking an explanation as to what that something is.

I am not saying they don't have the right to believe what they want, but that their beliefs are being imposed on everyone, be they kids or just the curious, because the fundies are stacking school boards, are (like their compatriots in the anti-abortion lobby) organised and actively prosthelytising their beliefs.

Sure, we can sit back and go "well, free speech and all that", or we can use our own to counter it.

Also, the arguments used by most creation science websites are circular, their references are to a very shallow and select level of publications (almost exclusively in C.S. and I.D. journals), and the arguments are all ased on nested "what ifs". Be as that may, it is not science, and someone should be publicly taking the argument to them in the same format.

More wiki links

Thankfully, Age of the Earth is relatively free of creation science problems, but you do get the odd physicist wandering in who naffs around with crazy B.S. "proofs" his potted reality explains why the Earth is younger than 4.5~Ga.

who cares.

Re: who cares.

Sadly, it's the uneducation and ignorant that tend to judge.It's a scary notion to realize just what exactly people make claims on without ever doing the research to back those claims. And then they want others to take it at face value without ever doing their own research. Letting people "judge" for themselves requires that they are able and willing to do that research. And from my experience, that is a tiny percentage of the population.